Evidence of meeting #1 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was section.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michel Bédard  Committee Researcher
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Olivier Champagne

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Are there any questions or comments regarding Bill C-291?

Seeing none, we'll proceed to Bill C-267.

11:50 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

Bill C-267 would enact the Canada Water Preservation Act, primarily by prohibiting or imposing restrictions on the removal of water in bulk.

This item does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction; it does not clearly violate other provisions of the Constitution, including the Charter; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as the ones already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Are there any questions or concerns on Bill C-267?

Mr. Dion.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

I'm not sure if it's constitutional the way it is, but we'll see.

11:50 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

I reviewed the literature on the water law, and both provincial and federal levels of government can legislate in this regard. At this stage, at the beginning of the process, to conclude that the bill is unconstitutional, there could be arguments.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Yes, and I think that's where we come back to the word “clearly”.

We'll proceed unless there's an objection.

Bill C-267 is considered votable.

Next is Bill C-293.

11:50 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

Bill C-293 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow the commissioner to designate an offender as a vexatious complainant.

This item does not concerns questions that are outside federal jurisdiction; it does not clearly violate other provisions of the Constitution, including the Charter; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Toone, do you have a question?

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

It seems to me a definition is missing from this bill. We have a definition of “complainant”, but there is no definition of “vexatious complainant”. However, that does not mean this cannot be considered a votable item.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

So noted, Mr. Toone.

All agree that it's votable. I see no objections.

Next is Bill C-315.

11:55 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

Mr. Chairman, coming back to Mr. Toone's question, I wanted to mention that there is an indirect definition in one clause of the bill. It's just that it isn't found in the definition clause, for example.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

That comment was related to Bill C-293.

We're moving on to Bill C-315.

11:55 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

Bill C-315 would amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to language requirements that apply to federal works, undertakings and businesses operating in Quebec. For example, it would force federal works, undertakings or businesses there to use French in their communications with employees.

This item does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction. As for other provisions of the Charter, it goes without saying that forcing a company to communicate with its employees in a particular language—in this case, French—could be seen as a violation of the right to freedom of expression. However, Supreme Court rulings do recognize the protection of the French fact in Quebec as a sufficiently important goal. Insofar as there is not a total prohibition—for example, if someone were being forced to communicate or advertise in French alone—and another language can be used, this bill could be considered constitutional.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Reid.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

I agree that this bill is clearly unconstitutional, because of subclause (f) that appears in clause 4.1(1), which reads as follows:

(f) an arbitration award made following arbitration of a grievance or dispute regarding the negotiation, renewal or review of a collective agreement shall, at the request of one of the parties, be translated into English or French, as the case may be, at the parties' expense.

It will be translated as the case may be at the party's expense, so it's done in French, and only translated into English at the party's expense if they request it.

This provision seems to me to be in violation of section 16 of the charter dealing with provision of federal services in both languages. Moreover, I also think it's a violation of section 133 of the 1867 Constitution Act, which refers to documents of government being available in both English and French.

The relevant case law here is the case of the #Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, from 1979, in which the Supreme Court argued that given that the protections under the Constitution should be regarded as growing rather like a living tree--they were citing the famous 1929 case, Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)--we ought to give a broad interpretation to what is meant by government rules. They were referring specifically to a part of Bill 101, Quebec's language law, which said regulations and the rulings of regulatory agencies would be in French only, a provision that was almost identical to the one here, actually.

But section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, applies in equal measure to both the Quebec and federal governments, and hence I think that ruling applies to this and renders this particular part of the proposed amendment invalid. I think the rest of it is probably okay. This part perhaps could be taken out and adjusted, but as it stands now, I think it's clearly unconstitutional.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Michel.

11:55 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

Just with regard to section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, you're right that there's no discrimination. The Journals or Hansard must be in French and English for the federal Parliament and the Quebec legislature. But this provision of the Constitution would not necessarily apply to federal enterprises, such as a bank or Air Canada, for example, so I don't think this section of the Constitution is applicable.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

This was the subject of litigation in Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, in which the court said that a large and liberal reading ought to be given to that language, so that it includes all rulings that have, from the point of view of the person to whom it is being applied, the force of law, which such a ruling would have. That, as I say, applied to both the Quebec and federal governments.

I am positive that unless the Supreme Court wants to change its mind on this, this is unconstitutional.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Does anyone want to further enter the discussion?

Mr. Toone.

Noon

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

We are talking about defending the Canada Labour Code here, which I don't think Blaikie touched on directly.

Noon

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

No, it didn't, but it's the same pertinent part of the—

Noon

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I can see that it's certainly debatable. I don't necessarily agree that the Blaikie decision would make this clearly unconstitutional. It's certainly up for debate.

It doesn't go beyond federal jurisdiction, so I'd have a difficulty in saying this is not votable. Personally, I think it is, but it may benefit from debate at the committee stage, frankly. It wouldn't be the first bill we've passed that would definitely benefit from debate.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Okay.

Mr. Reid.

Noon

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

You're right. It doesn't I think violate the jurisdiction question, which is criterion number one.

Criterion number two relates to violations of the Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982, not just of the charter of rights. My point is that, first of all, I have some concerns about section 16. It hasn't been litigated on in this regard, but section 133 has. The criteria that were applied by the Supreme Court in Blaikie were as to whether this has the effect of the force of law on an individual.

There were actually two Blaikie cases. One dealt with municipalities and whether they were provincially incorporated and so on. The courts ruled that the protections under the large and liberal reading they had given to section 133 did not apply to municipal corporations.

But this is a body of the federal government whose decisions effectively have the effect of court orders. They said not to take a broad reading of all of that. To my mind, this is actually quite a clear violation. It's just this one part of the legislation. I actually think you could correct it, but this one part seems to me to be very clearly in contravention of the Blaikie interpretation of section 133.

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Okay.

Mr. Dion.